3 ms·
> I haven't read a single response that I agree with as to why this is a negative? ...They are going to provide a range like $42k to $55k Why? Its like prop 6
by kansface 4y ago
> I haven't read a single response that I agree with as to why this is a negative? ...They are going to provide a range like $42k to $55k
Why? Its like prop 65 cancer warnings being on 100% of the products and buildings in CA. Its just a thing you do so as to avoid liability. Now, we have these useless warnings pasted everywhere that have no meaning beyond compliance. Is CA better off with these warnings? I can't imagine so. Will companies post very broad salary ranges? With certainty, whats the downside? Will the ranges correspond to reality? Probably not. Are we better off forcing companies to do this? I'm not sure.
- Broken_Hippo 4y agoI'm sorry, I don't see how this is the same. Will you explain why you think they are similar?
- kansface 4y agoWhat is the incentive for companies to put down meaningful/useful information? If that incentive exists, why weren't they doing it before the law was enacted? Alternatively, they weren't doing it before, so a priori I'd wager that the opposite incentive exists (to hide information from candidates). This law isn't changing incentives so behavior won't change beyond nominal compliance with the law.